Bonilla et al v. Bonilla
Filing
3
ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND TERMINATING PENDING MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/11/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2013)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
5
STEVEN BONILLA AND SUNSTATE
TROPICAL WHOLESALE NURSERY,
Case No.: 13-00951 CW (PR)
Plaintiffs,
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
v.
FLOY E. DAWSON, et al.,
Defendants.
STEVEN BONILLA AND SUNSTATE
TROPICAL WHOLESALE NURSERY,
Case No.: 13-00952 CW (PR)
Plaintiffs,
v.
12
13
14
KATHLEEN BONILLA,
Defendant.
STEVEN BONILLA AND SUNSTATE
TROPICAL WHOLESALE NURSERY,
15
Plaintiffs,
16
Case No.: 13-00953 CW (PR)
v.
17
FRANCIE KOEHLER, et al.,
18
Defendants.
STEVEN BONILLA AND SUNSTATE
TROPICAL WHOLESALE NURSERY,
19
20
Plaintiffs,
21
Case No.: 13-00954 CW (PR)
v.
22
23
PACIFIC GROWERS, et al.,
Defendants.
STEVEN BONILLA AND SUNSTATE
TROPICAL WHOLESALE NURSERY,
Case No.: 13-00955 CW (PR)
24
Plaintiffs,
25
26
v.
PACIFIC GROWERS,
27
28
Defendant.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND
TERMINATING PENDING MOTIONS
1
Plaintiff Steven Bonilla is a state prisoner proceeding pro
2
se who seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these
3
five civil actions.
4
Tropical Wholesale Nursery, a company of which he alleges he is
5
the president and owner.
6
various individuals and entities who he maintains are “in default
7
of an opportunity to respond” to a “commercial affidavit” he sent
8
them demanding the payment of debt owed to the company.
9
to Plaintiff, Defendants’ activities are also related to his
He brings these actions on behalf of Sunstate
In these actions, he attempts to sue
According
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
criminal conviction.
11
these same individuals and entities in federal court on numerous
12
occasions.
13
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
14
Plaintiff previously has attempted to sue
This Court has dismissed all of those actions for
On October 25, 2011, the Court informed Plaintiff that, in
15
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he no longer qualifies to
16
proceed IFP in any civil action he files in this Court.
17
Steven Bonilla, Nos. C 11-3180, et seq. CW (PR), Order of Dismissal
18
at 6:23-7:19.
19
Plaintiff may proceed IFP if he “is under imminent danger of
20
serious physical injury.”
21
language of the imminent danger clause in § 1915(g) indicates that
22
“imminent danger” is to be assessed at the time of filing of the
23
complaint.
24
Cir. 2007).
25
See In re
The sole exception to this restriction is that
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
The plain
See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th
Here, Plaintiff has not alleged facts that show he was in
26
imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed
27
these complaints.
28
sentenced to death does not, at this time, satisfy the imminent
Further, the fact that Plaintiff has been
2
1
danger requirement.
2
because this Court has entered a stay of execution in his pending
3
federal habeas corpus action.
4
CW (PR), Docket no. 3.
5
He is not in imminent danger of execution
See Bonilla v. Ayers, No. C 08-0471
Moreover, as the Court has explained to Plaintiff on numerous
6
occasions, to the extent the relief he seeks pertains to his
7
ongoing attempts to invalidate his conviction, such claims, if
8
raised, must be brought by appointed counsel in his pending
9
federal habeas corpus action.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s requests
11
to proceed IFP are DENIED and these actions are hereby DISMISSED.
12
13
The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions,
enter judgment and close the files.
14
The Clerk shall file a copy of this Order in C 08-0471 CW.
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
Dated: 3/11/2013
________________________
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?